Skip to content


Not Access to Knowledge, but Capability to Use Knowledge!

I attended a meeting called A2K (Access To Knowledge) held at Yale last year (Conference Wiki).   I got to hang with some friends whom I admire, like Yochai Benkler (one of the organizers) and to get to know some remarkable people, like Shay David – a clear and articulate thinker who has since visited us in Canberra.

For all the quality at the meeting, I was somewhat disappointed that there was an exclusive focus on ‘making information available’, but no one was talking about the Elephant in the Room, namely the extraordinary restrictions that were developing on the ‘capability to make use of that information’.

It shouldn’t have been surprising I suppose, for a group of academics – for indeed it was pretty much all academics save perhaps me and the janitor – to not be worried about constraints to the creation of tangible economic value – the core of innovation, as it is generally outside of their purview. But it was nonetheless greatly unsettling. I find the simple thought experiment that comes from testing hypotheses in physics to be a useful exercise.

If you’re proposing a course of action, it is instructive to imagine it succeeding (testing the hypothesis at the limit cases), and asking what consequences would eventuate. In the case of universal access to information, let’s imagine all information is available to everyone, everywhere, at no cost. What then?

Well, ultimately there is no impact of that information on our lives until it is ‘converted’ into products or processes. And the ability to ‘convert’ knowledge, what I call the ‘capability to use knowledge’ is associated with barriers, the most prominent one these days being patents. Thus, if you control by patent (or other means) the permissive use of a process of actually making a drug based on some scientific information; or making a crop based on rice genome information; or making a diagnostic for cancer based on clinical data, then you have effectly co-opted and obtained exclusive control over the value of the entire supporting body of ‘public’ information. So that ‘public information’ only there as a publicly funded (or publicly sanctioned) subsidy of the value proposition for those who control its further development into economic outcomes.

Posted in BiOS Licensing, General, Patents, Science, Social Enterprise.


Promiscuous patenting: Why does a dog lick himself?

We all know the answer, of course. And it bears on the question of the unpalatable abuse of the patent system. Why do these people do it? Same answer.

I was working with CAMBIA’s Patent Lens team on the forthcoming ‘landscape’ of patents around plant genes, and stumbled on a newly published patent application. It didn’t list the owner / assignee / applicant…just the inventors and their law firm. But I recognized one of the inventors (and the address, near St. Louis, was a giveaway) and a moment’s Googling confirmed it. Imagine my surprise!

Monsanto figures very prominently in the patent landscape, having filed countless wholesale sequence patents either directly or through their proxy companies, like Mendel Biotechnology, covering genes and promoters from rice, Arabidopsis, maize, cotton, soybean and presumably daffodils and snapdragons. But this patent application, US 2007/67865 A1, which had been hidden from view for years really grated (It dates from a US utility application from 2000, before publication was standard, and only published in 2007).

It claims about 463,173 separate annotated plant genes. Actually it claims exactly that many. Oh and it discloses them too, sort of, although the gargantuan file from the USPTO seems somehow corrupt. Matches the practice I guess.

Continued…

Posted in Patents.


EOS: Environmental/Energy Open Source

One evening some months back I had a marvelous dinner in Melbourne with Terry Cutler, a Board Member (at the time, acting as Chairman) of the CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency. In our enthusiastic exploration of the efficiencies and opportunities of rethinking innovation systems to embrace open systems and commons of capability, Terry posited that we needed not only BiOS (Biological Open Source) but EOS as well. Environmental or Energy Open Source (or Science). We were on the same page. If one were to argue that there is a fundamental and irreducible ‘commons’ on earth, it would be the commons of our shared environment, which is now profoundly threatened by global warming caused by short-sighted energy and environmental policies and practices.

Terry’s point was that EOS – (a Greek word for ‘dawn’: Ηώς, or Έως), was a logical extension of the BIOS (Greek for ‘life’: βiος) ideas that CAMBIA had been developing and promoting so widely.

Build a commons of capability around the shared imperative of environmental management and new energy options. And garner widespread international public support for EOS as an opportunity to build a common good that can and must provide the sustainable basis for economic and social well being.

We saw then that a merging of BIOS and EOS ideas was necessary to bring the innovative potential of the life sciences, energy sciences, environmental sciences, and materials, chemical, physical & nanosciences together to create new options.

In another blog I’ll describe what we have developed as the Apollo II. Biological Hydrogen Production from Sunlight.

Posted in BiOS Licensing, EOS, General, Science.